SUNITA SABHARWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 85 of 1967, 165 of 1967, 166 of 1967, 167 of 1967, 168 of 1967, 169 of 1967, 170 of 1967, 171 of 1967, 172 of 1967, 173 of 1967, 174 of 1967, 196 of 1967 and 197 of 1967. The petitioners in all these petitions are minors. Declarations of voluntary disclosure of income under S. 24 of Act No. 15 of 1965 were submitted on their behalf through persons other than the natural guardian which were returned by the ITOs concerned with the objection that the same were invalid as they did not bear the signature of the natural guardian of the minors. The petitioners in all the petitions have assailed these orders. The learned counsel for the parties are agreed that the points involved in the petitions are the same. They have, therefore, been heard together. For purposes of this order, facts in C W No. 85 of 1967 alone are being referred to.

(2.) THE petitioner in C W No. 85 of 1967 is Miss Sunita Sabharwal, minor daughter of H. L. Sabharwal. Sec. 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, provided for voluntary disclosure of income on conditions mentioned therein, by a person who had failed to furnish return or which had not been disclosed in the return of income on or before the 19th day of August, 1965. The income so declared was to be liable to tax at the rates specified in sub -s. (3) of S. 24, but was exempt from all other penalties, etc., otherwise provided by law in terms of this section. On March 30, 1966, a declaration disclosing an income of Rs. 10,000 was filed by the mother of the minor petitioner in the name of the minor but under her own signatures. It was returned by the ITO on April 26, 1966, with the following endorsement :

(3.) IN the counter filed by Shri R. N. Limaye, CIT, the filing of the declaration as well as the representation are admitted. It is maintained that the declaration had not been properly filed and was rightly returned. It is further contended that the declaration on behalf of the minor should have been signed by the natural guardian of the minor and that the mother of the minor who signed the declaration was not a natural guardian and as such was not competent to sign it. It is not admitted that the natural guardian could delegate his powers in respect of dealings with the property of the minor and the delegation of powers by the petitioner's father in the instant case as alleged is denied. It is further stated that the declaration entailed pecuniary liability for the minor and, therefore, the only person competent in law to file the declaration was the father of the petitioner.